31–36 of 36 posts
The reason we can't go back in time is that time and information (and hence consciousness, which is made of information) are inextricably linked by quantum physics: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
The reason we can't go back in time is that time and information (and hence consciousness, which is made of information) are inextricably linked by quantum physics: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
Your post explains why going back in time along the same path is pointless because you lose the information. But maybe we could take a different path (closed timelike curve) and keep the information.
No, it's much deeper than that: the accumulation of information is what creates time.
> closed timelike curve
This is at the limits of scientific knowledge so there's nothing definitive one could say about it at this point. But you might want to read this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simul...
A pretty substantial flaw in the piece, almost enough to sink it, is the suggestion that Looper is somehow more worthy of calling out than Primer. Tsk... somebody sack the fact checkers... Primer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/ (Interesting not least because its budget was about 50p)
It's a REALLY confusing film, but absolutely brilliant in the way that it shows just how confusing a world with time travel would be[1]. The way everything escalates in the latter half of the film is insane. For a "simple" explanation of the plot, see [2]. Since this analysis was done by a third party, it's obviously hard to be sure that this is fully correct, but it at least seems very close. [1] For anyone able to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a REALLY confusing film, but absolutely brilliant in the way that it shows just how confusing a world with time travel would be[1]. The way everything escalates in the latter half of the film is insane. For a "simple" explanation of the plot, see [2]. Since this analysis was done by a third party, it's obviously hard to be sure that this is fully correct, but it at least seems very close. [1] For anyone able to…
Also recommended: Primer commentary track. Run it beside the movie, and it'll drop in to explain things as they happen. https://qntm.org/commentary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder. If the universe is deterministic, and nothing is random, then Time could be thought of as a vector whose values encompass all the properties of everything in existence and the direction of changes in each of them. If we knew all the "rules" that govern those changes and could make a simulation that captured the current state of everything, we could traverse back and forth along that vector (but probably not…
This was a prevalent idea in physics till quantum mechanics burst into the scene. I don't remember where I saw it, this the most convincing argument I heard regarding simulating future: Our universe is actually the most efficient computer that can simulate the future with our physical laws. Meaning, at any given time, it is not actually executing a pre-determined program, it is busy computing the future.